First of all I’d like to say that English is not my native language, so sorry for all the mistakes. I ask for understanding.

I lot of people are complaining that F1 has become too much about machinery. It seems that drivers’ skill is not that important anymore. That’s a pity. I was wondering how it could be changed.

Over the years cars became way easier to drive. A lot of downforce, electronics everywhere, semi-automatic gearbox with paddles and no clutch and so on. Even Hamilton driving Senna’s McLaren on Top Gear was surprised how difficult it was.Anyway going backwards in terms of technology is absurd. No one is going to stick a manual gear box or cut most of the areo. Nonsense. I wonder though why FIA through all the regulation changes keeps F1 cars pretty much steady over the years when it comes to lap times. Pretty much all the sports are going forwards –> faster. Is F1 on limit of human reflexes? I looked up qualifying times and 2006 Monaco qualifying best was 1:13.532 and 2012 1:14.301. I‘ve been really surprised. Why aren’t F1 cars on the limit of human capability? Even “grandpa” Schumacher was up to speed last year (no offence there). Making cars 3-4 sec faster per lap would obviously make a difference. Driver would once again matter.

Of course the argument of safety is going to come up. But in my opinion modern F1 cars and tracks are very safe. Kubica crashed straight into the wall and pretty much nothing happened. The safety improved substantially over the years. No doubt about that. Why not push the speed and drivers more?

First of all I’d like to say that English is not my native language, so sorry for all the mistakes. I ask for understanding.

I lot of people are complaining that F1 has become too much about machinery. It seems that drivers’ skill is not that important anymore. That’s a pity. I was wondering how it could be changed.

Over the years cars became way easier to drive. A lot of downforce, electronics everywhere, semi-automatic gearbox with paddles and no clutch and so on. Even Hamilton driving Senna’s McLaren on Top Gear was surprised how difficult it was.Anyway going backwards in terms of technology is absurd. No one is going to stick a manual gear box or cut most of the areo. Nonsense. I wonder though why FIA through all the regulation changes keeps F1 cars pretty much steady over the years when it comes to lap times. Pretty much all the sports are going forwards –> faster. Is F1 on limit of human reflexes? I looked up qualifying times and 2006 Monaco qualifying best was 1:13.532 and 2012 1:14.301. I‘ve been really surprised. Why aren’t F1 cars on the limit of human capability? Even “grandpa” Schumacher was up to speed last year (no offence there). Making cars 3-4 sec faster per lap would obviously make a difference. Driver would once again matter.

Of course the argument of safety is going to come up. But in my opinion modern F1 cars and tracks are very safe. Kubica crashed straight into the wall and pretty much nothing happened. The safety improved substantially over the years. No doubt about that. Why not push the speed and drivers more?

If you get faster and faster you will once again reach that point where safety cannot be guaranteed...

Also, F1 is not about pushing the limits of humans, but also pushing the limits of technology. As such, whilst maintaining the agenda of keeping F1 at the peak of motorsport, they have tried to manage the performance output of F1 cars by directing them towards areas that map across to real-life outputs. Things such as bringing the engines closer to what we are using in our day to day cars and pushing F1 teams to gain the most out of them has real world possibilities.

Same with forcing them to go faster on less fuel. Still looking for maximum performance but also at maximum efficiency.

If it was purely about going as fast a possible, they would all bolt in 3l or 4l or 5l V12's or W16's pushing out silly horsepower but with no comparison to anything that would be used elsewhere.

It's about setting some limits and then saying go as fast as you can within the rules...

Besides, as the current drivers have shown, even in what you consider tame F1 cars, they still have moments when they lose control (e.g. "Grandpa" Schumacher in Singapore)

Your English is better than many natives, don't worry about that. And you raise an interesting point IMO.

Ultimately regulation changes seem to be for one of three or so reasons: to control costs, to dictate the direction of development, and safety. To all intents and purposes I believe safety concerns are the reason F1 cars aren't faster than they are. There will be different opinions on whether that's a valid concern. On the whole I would welcome a little more speed and therefore danger, but the diversity of tracks is problematic. IMO most circuits could accomodate faster cars without an excessive amount of risk. But what about Monaco, or even Valencia, Montreal, Suzuka etc.? I can understand the FIA not wanting to allow lap times to continue creeping up at some venues.

Interested to see what other views are on this subject.

_________________Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?-Epicurus

From what I understand the 2009- cars were actually more difficult to drive than those in the mid-2000s. The new front and rear wing profiles reduced the downforce substantially which had more of an impact on overall speed than the V8 engines.

I think we'd all like to see V10s back, but at the end of the day more horsepower = more $$$$$ on research and development which the engine manufacturers can't afford, since nobody really makes V10 roadcars.

As guys earlier have mentioned with more speed you can expect less safety. Thats why we have the engine freeze. But if ur comparing the laptimes of 2006 and 2012 you also have to consider all the new tech parts that have gone in the car to make it that much heavier (750 Kg??). Eg KERS, The DRS system which will have its own set of levers and sensors etc Just to name a few. Infact the racing now requires a little more of driver skills than earlier. They have to look after the tyres, the KERS etc. Which is a good thing.

As guys earlier have mentioned with more speed you can expect less safety. Thats why we have the engine freeze. But if ur comparing the laptimes of 2006 and 2012 you also have to consider all the new tech parts that have gone in the car to make it that much heavier (750 Kg??). Eg KERS, The DRS system which will have its own set of levers and sensors etc Just to name a few. Infact the racing now requires a little more of driver skills than earlier. They have to look after the tyres, the KERS etc. Which is a good thing.

Wouldn't it be nice to see drivers having to drive cars from 1995 or 1997, except having safety modifications to match those of today?

More (relatively) power, less grip.

There was an interview with Michael Schumacher when he said yes the field of today is indeed a high standard, but also it was when he was racing and if you had the same cars today you would get the same gaps, like a second, because every slide cost more.

He also said the cars were more "expressive".

It would be great fun and I doubt it would change the pecking order, Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso, Raikkonen et al would still be the best.

Last edited by Eva09 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Of course everyone motioned safety. I expected that. I have 2 doubts.1. Where is the limit to safety? We all agree that peoples lives are at stake but how much should we back off? I did put that time because I believe that 2012 cars are safer than 2006 but yet slower. Shouldn’t it be other way around? I know they are heavier with KERS and all but this could be easily evened with more horsepower. It may sound awful but F1 is somehow a spectators sport so danger is part of it. Nobody is making boxing illegal or more safe and even deaths happen after a heavy knockout. 2. More important. I somehow feel that because speed (lap times) are steady for many years everybody is content with safety nowadays so there is no development in that area. The question is: Wouldn’t more speed push safety development? Example: Massa. After his head was severely hit everybody was wondering how to improve safety in that area. Of course we don’t want anybody injured but I just wanted to make a point.

As it comes to difficulty of driving F1 cars. I think I agree. But I’m not sure if difficulty comes from speed, under/oversteer (and it should) but form all the extra buttons, and setups.

@Eva: Ofcourse i would love to see drivers in the old car. However I not too sure about the pecking order because a lot of different variables need to accounted for like the drivers adaptability, the track etc. IMO it would vary. If Schumachers idea of an "Expressive" car means less computer controlled and more driver controlled then I have to agree with him on that too. But something even better would be a car with absolutely no driver aids, no tech gizmos at all whatsoever, which responds just to the drivers instinct completely is even more fun to watch. That would sort out the good from the greats

Of course everyone motioned safety. I expected that. I have 2 doubts.1. Where is the limit to safety? We all agree that peoples lives are at stake but how much should we back off? I did put that time because I believe that 2012 cars are safer than 2006 but yet slower. Shouldn’t it be other way around? I know they are heavier with KERS and all but this could be easily evened with more horsepower. It may sound awful but F1 is somehow a spectators sport so danger is part of it. Nobody is making boxing illegal or more safe and even deaths happen after a heavy knockout. 2. More important. I somehow feel that because speed (lap times) are steady for many years everybody is content with safety nowadays so there is no development in that area. The question is: Wouldn’t more speed push safety development? Example: Massa. After his head was severely hit everybody was wondering how to improve safety in that area. Of course we don’t want anybody injured but I just wanted to make a point.

As it comes to difficulty of driving F1 cars. I think I agree. But I’m not sure if difficulty comes from speed, under/oversteer (and it should) but form all the extra buttons, and setups.

When it comes to safety, being completely rational and logical doesn't work. Its kind of a sensitive/emotional issue. Whenever there is a big accident, even if the safety measures actually work, there is a sudden public interest in safety and the FIA is forced to show "progress". It is one of the many things in F1 where politics is unavoidable.

But there is also the question: should we make the cars faster ? Last time when the cars were very fast back in '09 we didn't have much overtaking. And that's the problem. Faster cars or cars that are more difficult to drive ultimately don't make races more enjoyable for the viewers.

@Petruchio: On your 2nd point: Things are relatively safe now yes but the FIA hasnt stopped R&D in that area. Its never gonna stop. There will be hundred of ideas that will comeup and only a few will be used In F1. We wont be able to see or know most of them but they will make a lot of difference to the driver and the car. About your 1st point: It really depends on the FIA if they want to open up the regulation. But then for every additional bhp you have to use that much thicker metal for durability. Then you add more elements to decipate the heat. With that then you also have to take into account the exhaust, the gearbox, the chassis, the aero, the tyres. There will be no end to the cost input. It may not matter to the big manufacturers. But then they come and go as they please. But what about the smaller teams. Someone said it quiet perfectly earlier. The regulations have been made to help a little bit for the real world application. That is why we are moving to the 1.6 turbo.

The fact is that with the 2014 regs, it is being predicted that the cars will run a 3-4 seconds slower than current regs. But as the regulations stay unchanged, 2014 and beyond, the technology and the engineering on the limited rules slowly will (within 2-3 years) come to the current benchmarks.

I'd also love to see 3.0 or 3.5 litre Vee-engines of 6.8.10,12,16 cylinders, no turbos/kers/rainwater tanks/sunpanels AND manual gearchanges and foot operated clutches. Mario Andretti once said that automatic gearboxes were made for old people who had no interest in cars or driving, that GP drivers are supposed to be the best and should have the challenge of operating gears and clutch... But this is dreaming. The OP is right, there is no going back.

I think what limits car power/engine capacity is the circuits. Land and construction/safety/standard costs are so high.

Human abilities are not the limiting factor; drivers will cope with anything, even 2000 bhp.

Funnily enough today I watched the video about RBR making the worlds fastest race car without any regs. Newey said one of the main things is that it will reach a point where the human body cannot take the G-forces anymore and the cars become unbearable to drive. I guess we could be currently prolonging the reaching of that moment, I mean what would happen if F1 reached the moment when it was physically impossible to go faster because of the warm squishy bit in the middle?

If the FIA threw the rule book out and defined a Formula One car as just requiring more than two wheels, even the lowest ranked team could shatter any lap record by ten seconds. The technology exists, it has for many years, but it is being kept below a plateau of performance by the FIA. There is a cycle that is going on, every few years the FIA pulls back on the reins, and every year (actually every day) the engineers find new ways to go quicker.

Back in the late 70's, more like the 80's when there were turbo engines generating over 1500 HP in qualifying trim and full ground effects everyone realized that the cars were just getting too quick. Not top end, but drivers aimed the cars into corners, and hoped they came out in the correct line on the exit. Niki Lauda phrased it well..

Quote:

There was no such thing as cornering technique in the ground effect era. ‘Cornering’ was a euphemism for rape practised on the driver. . . In a ground effect car, reaching the limit was synonymous with spinning out.

So the FIA changed the regulations, and ground effects and turbo engines were gone. Sometimes it takes a tragedy to wake people up and do the right thing. When Senna's death sent shock waves through the racing world, the FIA made sweeping changes, all in the interest of safety. We just don't need to go through that again, the trauma from May 1st, 1994 still haunts many.

How do you define safety, and what can be considered acceptable levels? Of course we all have our own personal definitions, but mine is that by no single mistake should a person die. If there is a series of multiple failures, then even airliners fall out of the sky.

The ultimate race cars of the 80's, the most expensive and exotic were the Formula One cars. They reached a plateau of performance long before other makes and series. But that ceiling will be maintained, and in the last few decades, technology has allowed cheaper and more accessable vehicles to climb close to the performance levels of Formula One cars.

How fast is too fast? Formula One found out in 1994, the hard way. Human lives are too precious to waste re-learning old mistakes.

Have to apologise to those who've posted thought out responses (which are all valid) but the answer is because drivers either wouldn't be able to drive the cars or would die regularly. Neither of which we want to see.

Your point about the difference between 2006 and now is interesting though. At the moment, the cars speeds are pretty consistent year-on-year because when the FIA tries to slow them down the engineers catch up by roughly the same amount. If we reverted the cars back to 2004 spec (where most of the lap records seem to come from) when just as few drivers died but the lap times were a few seconds quicker, surely we'd be no worse off? The 2009 rules were brought in to aid overtaking and if anything made it worse. If we add Pirellis and DRS to the 2004 cars we'd have all the overtaking we have now plus faster (and better looking imo) cars.

I agree. I would for one love to see v10s back : D. Put a no-refuelling limit in, Let the teams find a way to make the v10s economical. There you go! Pleases the crowd and the eco people ^_^. Anyhoo I look forward to see how the V6 sounds : o

We need more power. Lots more. 1500bhp isn't unsafe if the cars are leaving the previous corner 20kph slower than currently. The FIA needs to get serious about drastically reducing downforce like mandating much simpler single or twin element wings.

Funnily enough today I watched the video about RBR making the worlds fastest race car without any regs. Newey said one of the main things is that it will reach a point where the human body cannot take the G-forces anymore and the cars become unbearable to drive. I guess we could be currently prolonging the reaching of that moment, I mean what would happen if F1 reached the moment when it was physically impossible to go faster because of the warm squishy bit in the middle?

Thing is, we're not prolonging it, because they could have built a ground-effect car in the 80s that would have created too many Gs for a human to handle.

The technology has existed for decades, it's just pointless to push closer to it when the current regulations already push their bodies pretty hard.

I'm just hoping the new engines will deliver on their promise of less mechanical grip and it'll make things a little more challenging for the drivers.

There was a great quote from Adrian Newey on AutoSport yesterday where he said If the cars were developed to their maximum without any restrictions the drivers would not be able to withstand the g-force in order to drive it.

The FIA are fairy cakes of getting into another Group B rally situation in an era when both Governments and the public wouldn't stand for deaths occurring. It is also nigh on impossible to attract manufacturers to the sport if they are in danger of a PR disaster. Then on top of that you have the way the cars have to translate to road technology if they are to remain relevent. 1.6 Turbo's reflect the way the likes of Renault are looking to move in their road cars, even a lot of the aero like diffusers etc is begining to creep into road cars now.

F1 won't survive being like it was in the 60's and 70's and rightly so.

Texas Motor speedway had to cancel a Champ Car race in 2001 due to the drivers not being able to cope with high lateral G-forces and experiencing a form of vertigo. This was mainly due to the steep banking but it's not inconceivable that given high enough cornering speeds the same could apply to road courses.

Flight suits and breathing exercises like fighter pilots use could help, but human reactions would be a factor in limiting speeds before then. Not to mention, you could design the toughest monocoque in the world able to withstand anything but the force of deceleration in an impact would simply not be survivable.

The cars may not be as fast as they were in the mid 2000's, but the fact that they're only a few seconds off the ultimate lap record at many tracks is a testament to the ingenuity of the designers.

There was a great quote from Adrian Newey on AutoSport yesterday where he said If the cars were developed to their maximum without any restrictions the drivers would not be able to withstand the g-force in order to drive it.

I think there is a bit to go before the g-force is too high. From what I remember 5g is about the max force generated on the driver in F1 whilst driving, there might be a a point in the odd race where it is slightly higher for a split second, but that is generally the max. In the Red Bull air races the pilots are hitting 12g regularly, I think this is the max they will allow now for safety reasons, but it is still over double what an F1 driver hits.

If they made cars hit g-forces that high the 2004 records would be shredded even with the tiny engines, assuming the tyres didn't shred themselves 1st!!

There was a great quote from Adrian Newey on AutoSport yesterday where he said If the cars were developed to their maximum without any restrictions the drivers would not be able to withstand the g-force in order to drive it.

I think there is a bit to go before the g-force is too high. From what I remember 5g is about the max force generated on the driver in F1 whilst driving, there might be a a point in the odd race where it is slightly higher for a split second, but that is generally the max. In the Red Bull air races the pilots are hitting 12g regularly, I think this is the max they will allow now for safety reasons, but it is still over double what an F1 driver hits.

If they made cars hit g-forces that high the 2004 records would be shredded even with the tiny engines, assuming the tyres didn't shred themselves 1st!!

The question was put to Adrian that if they did not have any restrictions how fast could they make the cars go around a track, his answer was what I posted, so i tend to believe him.

I wonder how the cars would look and sound, no limits on active suspension, aero devices, tyres re designed, they would obliterate any 2004 time

Have to apologise to those who've posted thought out responses (which are all valid) but the answer is because drivers either wouldn't be able to drive the cars or would die regularly. Neither of which we want to see.

Your point about the difference between 2006 and now is interesting though. At the moment, the cars speeds are pretty consistent year-on-year because when the FIA tries to slow them down the engineers catch up by roughly the same amount. If we reverted the cars back to 2004 spec (where most of the lap records seem to come from) when just as few drivers died but the lap times were a few seconds quicker, surely we'd be no worse off? The 2009 rules were brought in to aid overtaking and if anything made it worse. If we add Pirellis and DRS to the 2004 cars we'd have all the overtaking we have now plus faster (and better looking imo) cars.

Food for thought.

if we reverted back to 2004 spec, the cars would be considerably quicker because technology has moved on since then. Within those regs the teams could use double diffusers and exhaust blowing and all the other innovations that have appeared since then and been banned.

Personally I don't think the cars need to be made any faster though. There has to be a limit somewhere, and I think it's in the right place at the moment.

Sheer speed is not as important as the competition between packages/cars/drivers. Many predicted the end of the world when the 1961 1.5-litre formula came in; there were more overtakes then than ever, on track as opposed to in the pits. It is the racing that is compelling. And that will always be close, between cars and drivers.

The mid-eighties turbos were impressive and noticeable faster in speed (not lap time now) than anything else. Pitlane rumour was that Brabham-BMW welded their cyl head on for quali to keep the 1500 horses inside! I chatted to Piquet in those years in the KYalami pits; he enjoyed the torque coming out of the corners more than anything. His car control was quite something. So did Keke Rosberg. Kyalami was a fast, open circuit then, and the entry to the 1.6km main straight out of the uphill Leeuwkop Corner was exciting, seeing the drivers balance wheelspin and backend-sliding with forward motion.

For me all the cars since the turbos have been more than fast enough. Although a couple of old drivers (DC and someone else?) who recently tried the 2.4s were disappointed at the lack of power/torque compared with the 3.0 litre V10s.

For us as fans/specators I don't think the speed makes any difference.

The new 2014 engines have had a lot of criticism on here, but one of their main characteristics is they will be much more torquey and will deliver their power over a much wider rev band so will demand much more skill of the drivers as they exit corners than they do now. They might not be more powerful than the current engines, but the way the power will be delivered will make them seem more powerful as the drivers get back on the power and will address some of the issues described above for those who think the cars have got too easy to drive.

Have to apologise to those who've posted thought out responses (which are all valid) but the answer is because drivers either wouldn't be able to drive the cars or would die regularly. Neither of which we want to see.

Your point about the difference between 2006 and now is interesting though. At the moment, the cars speeds are pretty consistent year-on-year because when the FIA tries to slow them down the engineers catch up by roughly the same amount. If we reverted the cars back to 2004 spec (where most of the lap records seem to come from) when just as few drivers died but the lap times were a few seconds quicker, surely we'd be no worse off? The 2009 rules were brought in to aid overtaking and if anything made it worse. If we add Pirellis and DRS to the 2004 cars we'd have all the overtaking we have now plus faster (and better looking imo) cars.

Food for thought.

if we reverted back to 2004 spec, the cars would be considerably quicker because technology has moved on since then. Within those regs the teams could use double diffusers and exhaust blowing and all the other innovations that have appeared since then and been banned.

Personally I don't think the cars need to be made any faster though. There has to be a limit somewhere, and I think it's in the right place at the moment.

Blown diffusers existed before 2010, and they were certainly not the optimal solution for the 2004 engines and regulations. Also, the diffusers were very large back in 2004 - I'm not sure if they would be able to incorporate a double diffuser and whether those rules would have permitted it.

if we reverted back to 2004 spec, the cars would be considerably quicker because technology has moved on since then. Within those regs the teams could use double diffusers and exhaust blowing and all the other innovations that have appeared since then and been banned.

Personally I don't think the cars need to be made any faster though. There has to be a limit somewhere, and I think it's in the right place at the moment.

Blown diffusers existed before 2010, and they were certainly not the optimal solution for the 2004 engines and regulations. Also, the diffusers were very large back in 2004 - I'm not sure if they would be able to incorporate a double diffuser and whether those rules would have permitted it.

it would not have made sense to implement EBDs or DD's or even a combination, as the diffusers were large enough - just as you said...however at this time there was much less mechanical grip as tyres lasted longer and had grooves in it... aero-grip back then was limited by higher positioned front-wings - well - should have been...

the 2009 rules were intended to reduce dependency on aerodynamics by giving back some mechanical grip and limiting the use of the diffusers (kind of the second clampdown on ground-effect after ruling out the low side-skirts, but that's a different topic)...

Volantary wrote:

Have to apologise to those who've posted thought out responses (which are all valid) but the answer is because drivers either wouldn't be able to drive the cars or would die regularly. Neither of which we want to see.

Your point about the difference between 2006 and now is interesting though. At the moment, the cars speeds are pretty consistent year-on-year because when the FIA tries to slow them down the engineers catch up by roughly the same amount. If we reverted the cars back to 2004 spec (where most of the lap records seem to come from) when just as few drivers died but the lap times were a few seconds quicker, surely we'd be no worse off? The 2009 rules were brought in to aid overtaking and if anything made it worse. If we add Pirellis and DRS to the 2004 cars we'd have all the overtaking we have now plus faster (and better looking imo) cars.

Food for thought.

you forgot some parts: in 2006, refuelling was allowed, so the cars had a smaller fuel-cell... engineers also didn't have to bother with KERS, RPM restrictions and/or a maximum number of engines they can use or the 5 races per gearbox rule... but most notably: TRACTION CONTROL, which should be of high use in the streets of monaco...

furthermore the crash-structures were updated - resulting in heavier designs...

now take out the heavy kers and crash-structures, the room of the fuel-cell, give them back 20.000 rpms and let the parts die after each race but combine this with traction control, DRS and quicker pirellis, high chassis and flexing wings - boy, those cars would be off the charts and probably not safe anymore... consider this: the redbull X2010 was mentioned earlier... doing a virtual test-drive SV was about 20sec quicker than the lap record in suzuka... suzuka has a lot of high-speed corners, so most of that time is made-up in such, accounting for higher-cornering speed - as easy as a blown tyre the driver goes off at much higher speed with much higher sideways g-force...

EDIT: to back up my earlier thoughts, in 2008 (first year without traction control and other driving aids) the quickest time in monaco qualifying was 1.15.110, which almost was the fastest lap during the race 2009! actually the rule changes from 2009 made the cars quicker in monaco - as they should have given the amount of mechanical grip needed and provided - it was 2007 and 2008 what slowed them down...

_________________How to fix F1:1. Stop seeking consensuses on rules - it will always turn out to be the least favourible option for everyone involved...2. Listen to the fans - there are plenty of them and they have good ideas...

Last edited by egnat69 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think there is a bit to go before the g-force is too high. From what I remember 5g is about the max force generated on the driver in F1 whilst driving, there might be a a point in the odd race where it is slightly higher for a split second, but that is generally the max. In the Red Bull air races the pilots are hitting 12g regularly, I think this is the max they will allow now for safety reasons, but it is still over double what an F1 driver hits.

For the pilot of an aircraft, those 10 to 12 G's are in line with their body, and as well they are partially reclined (and wearing a G-suit). In a race car, those forces are lateral, sideways to the body, and the results on the body act very differently. It's one thing to have the blood pool towards the torso, it's another to have the blood pool to one side of the head.

I feel though I wasn’t clearly understood. A lot of people answered my question by talking about safety, G forces, human body limit etc tec. That if we make F1 cars faster safety would be compromised and no driver could stand the g-forces . Well I didn’t mean no limit, but why not a little faster. In fact it’s the other way around.

Correct me if I’m wrong ( I don’t think Mozna had any configuration changes in the last decade) but 2012 qualifying time was 1:24 link and this video showing a qualifying lap by Montoya in 2002r link Believe it or not the time is 1:20.

Four seconds slower? I was surprised. Surely the g-forces where the same and safety-wise – well that’s obvious. Any thoughts?.

I feel though I wasn’t clearly understood. A lot of people answered my question by talking about safety, G forces, human body limit etc tec. That if we make F1 cars faster safety would be compromised and no driver could stand the g-forces . Well I didn’t mean no limit, but why not a little faster. In fact it’s the other way around.

Correct me if I’m wrong ( I don’t think Mozna had any configuration changes in the last decade) but 2012 qualifying time was 1:24 link and this video showing a qualifying lap by Montoya in 2002r link Believe it or not the time is 1:20.

Four seconds slower? I was surprised. Surely the g-forces where the same and safety-wise – well that’s obvious. Any thoughts?.

why is it that you equate raw lap-times with the limit of the drivers? for instance there is an onboard of a lap in monza in 1977... the times were about 1:40 and lauda and the other guys were pretty much at the limit then... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7pt49VcGYE

however, there are differences in time that define the limit: lauda had to use a clutch and a shifting-knob, while berger already had a semi-automatic... nowadays drivers have lots of other stuff: KERS, DRS, brake-bias, engine-management, fuel-mix ... they have to manage that while looking at the sides and mirrors while going between 250 and 330 kph...

in 2011 i first played the new F1 2011 on my ps3 with a proper wheel and pedal set-up in a playseat ... that was when i realized, that those racing drivers just had a lot to do in the cockpit besides stearing the car around the circuit... now i didn't have to cope with the heat, the g-forces or a bumpy race-track, still i didn't manage to keep my concentration up for 50% of the race-distance...

yes ... the cars could go faster, but that wouldn't change a lot of the limit of the drivers...

_________________How to fix F1:1. Stop seeking consensuses on rules - it will always turn out to be the least favourible option for everyone involved...2. Listen to the fans - there are plenty of them and they have good ideas...